5 ms·

You're correct - taxpayers should be subsidizing an improved form of rail transit instead (see china, europe, japan.)

• pzone 9y ago
  Taxpayers should barely subsidize trains, if at all. If they're not profitable it's a very strong sign they shouldn't be run in the first place. (Or prices should be increased.) America is very different from Europe and Japan. Japan's population is concentrated in a single megalopolis. Europe is denser than America as well, 700 million people in roughly the same area. Another reason sprawling rail networks aren't a great idea in the US is that our geography is cleaved down the middle by a 1000 mile swath that is sparsely populated, and bordered by a massive mountain range.
  • ascagnel_ 9y ago
    Ironically, one of the biggest problems Amtrak faces is that it's forced, by Congressional decree, to service unprofitable routes on track time that must be paid to freight carriers. If Amtrak operated only the Northeast Corridor, and could reinvest in that region instead of having to beg for nickels, the US could have train service in a region that more closely mimics the relative density of Europe. Acela is a step in that direction, but a half-step at best.
    • pzone 9y ago
      Yep, but you get romantics who just can't imagine reducing train service on those unused lines out of the romance, and they come and downvote people who suggest maybe this things aren't much of a public service, and people who aren't using them shouldn't be paying for them.